You need to be careful how you interpret the vast amounts of info out there and verify that it really is information not scare tactics with a secondary gain.

The only reason that the actual numbers of reported dz is low is a componant of sevaral factors,

HERD IMMUNITY

1.As long as the "herd" gets vaccinated in high enough numbers the unimmunized members are protected from communicable dz.

as there is not enough human host to carry, get sick and give it to someone else, (who is vunerable).

2.Only when that number drops to a point that there is enough unprotected members.

3.In close enough proximity to each other is the epidemic possible.

4. most importantly.. they have to be reported by someone. Example, how many actual rapes occur as opposed to reported??

The more important question is... how many unprotected person are falling victim as opposed to the persons immunized can be proven to fall victim to the vaccines.

I will refer all readers to an online and yes true article about the main theorist MD who was found to have fudged the figures about vaccines published in the BMJ 1998 by Doctor Andrew Wakfield to arrive at his own thoughts about the risk of vaccines.

MSNBC.com Study tying vaccine to autism was fraud, report says. THe BMJ had retracted all article it previously published on the topic.

I was in England (I'm American) about this time and it caused a large jump in deaths from whooping cough in Ireland because parents were refusing routine childhood vacc. for fear (unfounded) of autism. I guess that death may in some be preferred to "damaged mentally". The hospital numbers were staggering. First, his study had far too few cases included to have validity, only 12.

We will never really know what he percentages were before such good almost instant reporting "in the good ole days" Maternal death and yes neonatal deaths were fairly common and viewed as an acceptable risk for having a baby. Of course nowadays the lawyers don't accept this, because it has to be somebody's fault in order to make money out of it.

Im not really sure what the purpose of your post is other than to point out the usual arguements in support of vaccination. I laughed at the part of your post about that people should be careful of info that is bascially scare tactics with a secondary gain - those people that choose not to vaccinate after careful research and consideration are all too farmiliar with those tactics.

The Andrew Wakefield case has been hashed out on this thread multiple times. No use doing it again IMO. If you are interested in opposing viewpoints you can do a thread search.

If the people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.

I also struggled to follow the OP. I am confused as to why parents in Ireland stopped using DTaP after a paper was published of a case series of Autistic children whose parents reported an association with MMR vaccination and Autism diagnosis in their children. Also, the study was published in the Lancet, not the BMJ......

OP, can you clarify your main points?

Marnica is right. If you want to discuss Wakefield, there is lots to read in past threads. Reading through those might help raise new questions.

Add me to those people who are confused by this post. It seems to be saying those who don't vaccinate are victims of scare tactics? I'm confused. To me, it's the complete opposite. Those who choose not to vaccinate are not falling for the scare tactics to be afraid of every single disease/germ/illness out there and have most likely found other ways to prevent/treat illnesses rather than vaccination. And you seem to be downplaying people who are damaged mentally, and whose damage WAS from the vaccines. I don't think that is very nice.

I can't speak for all people. I can only speak for myself but Wakefield's study, or autism for that matter, is not the sole reason for my decision to not vaccinate. There are many, many reasons for my decision and scare tactics is certainly not one of them. I believe the majority of people on this forum used the risk versus benefit analysis when choosing their decisions, as that is the only way we have to come to our ultimate decisions. Of course diseases can be serious, but so are vaccines. Neither should be taken lightly.

Wouldn't want to be worth responding to, but I didn't want to respond to this reply:

Quote:

Originally Posted by babygirlie

An unvaxed child is more likely to catch a disease from a person carrying the live virus (which is like everyone).. so hardly herd immunity.

I was reading on the cdc website the death rate of vaccines is like 1/130 same as the autism rate. That's a lot of deaths.. (or at least in my state)

I think you meant to say that an unvaxed child is more likely to catch a disease from a person who was vaccinated with a live virus vaccine? If so, that is false. Well, it was true during the period after which the oral polio vaccine had wiped out wild polio in the US but before they switched to the shot of inactiviated polio which can't cause polio, but not now. While it is possible to occasionally catch flu from someone who has recently been vaccinated with flumist or chickenpox from someone who has recently been vaccinated for chickenpox, both diseases are still around and an unvaccinated child is far more likely to catch the wild strains from other people who have caught them naturally.

In theory live measles, mumps, or rubella could be transmitted from the MMR, but there are no documented cases of it happening with measles, and I'm not sure if there are with the other two, but if so it is extremely rare. In very rare cases with measles they don't know who the child caught it from, likely because it was through brief exposure to a person who had a very mild case so they never even realized that they had it much less had it reported, but the vast majority of cases can be traced directly to someone who brought the disease back from overseas. So if anyone ever even has caught it from a vaccinated child, it is an extremely rare incident.

As for the "cdc website the death rate of vaccines is like 1/130," I can not imagine what numbers you could possibly be looking at. For 2009, the rates of infant mortality and under-5 child mortality for the united states were 7 and 8 per 1000 live births respectively (source). This works out to 1 infant death for every 143 live births and 1 child death for every 125 live births (and the child deaths are from birth to fifth birthday, so include the infant deaths, most kids who die do so before their first birthday). This includes all causes of deaths from congenital defects, SIDS, cancer, other illness, accidents, abuse, etc, but these numbers are very close to what you are claiming the mortality rate from just vaccines to be. The truth is, while a death from a vaccine is an enormous tragedy, deaths from vaccines are extremely rare, much less common than deaths from vaccine preventable diseases would be if in one vaccinated. This is true even of very mild diseases such as chicken pox which are a minor inconvenience to most families, but about 125 kids in the US still died from it each year before the vaccine, which is very safe, and that number has plummeted since.

I have read the OP''s "post" 2x and couldn't for the life of me figure out what the heck was going on! (Course I didn't scroll down either lol...troll) Anyway I read it to DH and he said "Poster must be a doc...like familydoctor2011 kind of person" Lol I rarely ever read the person's name!!!

Lydiah! So glad you got all that clared up! I'm phewing with you!!! Lololololololololololol!

An unvaxed child is more likely to catch a disease from a person carrying the live virus (which is like everyone).. so hardly herd immunity.

I was reading on the cdc website the death rate of vaccines is like 1/130 same as the autism rate. That's a lot of deaths.. (or at least in my state)

Could you please link this source for me? I have a really hard time believing that the "death rate" of vaccines is 1/130.

I mean, I have 2500 female adult patients. Let's say that 70% of them have kids, and the average is 2 kids/person. That's 3500 kids. If all of them vaccinate, that means that 27 of them would have lost a child to a vaccine.

Remember that only about 10% of all vaccine deaths/injuries are reported to VAERS. Assuming that all 27 of yours report at the same rate as the general population - 10% - as your example pretends. Then 2 or 3 of them would have lost a child to a vaccine reaction. Could be!

Or is it just one in a million?

But I'm not VAERS. All of my patients get asked how many pregnancies and how many live births they have had. If the numbers don't match, I get more information, so I find out if they had a miscarriage, abortion, stillbirth, or the loss of a child. I really, really, doubt that 90% of my patients are deliberately not informing me of the loss of a child.